Mailing-List: contact dev-help@accumulo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mdrob@cloudera.com designates
 209.85.219.45 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGHyZ6K0tE1NhwtF-mtx8R7L3=3XhrrXHaMLXs7vV2viXDjqeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAL5zq9aPieiDH+EkYLpjAu_RYRjAJ8n_ziH6jhzQvNE8XyNVAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CADczPYTr_aN06tDhpQdctA7agpPD4_akAn6QpQxgiNyOrxGMGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6Lj=2qjk-9JB9ZAMmnWohfHm-=6R=pgJd5BymG_NTWMDg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAD-fFU+Xjx2R4GFDB3MxHEfh1LZ1qvzqxjXx0H30J7TqSsN+bQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL5zq9aEqGDQxqUpu+EkJT=A-+K+BJShLBpv2uMqnPtBpS1NMA@mail.gmail.com>
 <01e601cf4f90$67bfc620$373f5260$@comcast.net>
 <1777229427.13692180.1396626525860.JavaMail.root@comcast.net>
 <CAL5zq9aXHBifwVBtdq+opX364jtQfRs43+anyXg3FX8R7fpLmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGHyZ6K0tE1NhwtF-mtx8R7L3=3XhrrXHaMLXs7vV2viXDjqeA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Drob <madrob@cloudera.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 05:45:22 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAFAMeYLP=s_Rf1cayto5gOs2iUhJ6DDxEMJ9Fj4=iii7USti8g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Bugs-only strictness for bugfix releases
To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0160c660d9910404f6733ebb

--089e0160c660d9910404f6733ebb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Christopher,

Can you provide a delineation between bug fix and improvement? I've noticed
that you recategorized several issues, including ACCUMULO-2638 and
ACCUMULO-2639 and was wondering what your criteria was for such.

Is a bug-fix only something that has been reported by a user?

Mike


On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Sean Busbey <busbey@cloudera.com> wrote:

> None of our previous 1.x releases met semver's requirements for a minor
> version, so I don't think we need to worry about adopting that approach as
> a part of the 1.6.0 release cycle.
>
> There are a ton of reasons I want  a 2.0.0. Given the significance of that
> change I think we should have a discussion about reqs.
>
> It's out of scope for this thread though.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > It's probably true that 1.6.0 currently would not meet semver's
> > requirements for minor release compatibility, but something like this
> > I think should probably change at the beginning of a dev cycle, not at
> > the end. It seems to me that 1.7.0 would be the time to apply this,
> > considering it 1) has a different minimum JDK version, and 2) is
> > expected to contain a drastically improved client API module, where we
> > could actually apply maven plugins to ensure public API versioning
> > compliance naturally.
> >
> > --
> > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 11:48 AM,  <dlmarion@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > I don't know the specifics of the api changes in 1.6.0. But I would be
> > curious, if we applied the rules of something like semver, if the version
> > of code in the 1.6.0 branch is not consistent with the 1.6.0 version
> > number, but is maybe a 2.0.0.
> > >
> > > - Dave
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >
> > > From: dlmarion@comcast.net
> > > To: dev@accumulo.apache.org
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2014 6:59:44 PM
> > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Bugs-only strictness for bugfix releases
> > >
> > >
> > > I like the idea of what semver defines (and provides in maven
> plugins). I
> > > don't think we are following this methodology today. I think people
> have
> > a
> > > tendency to want to backport or add features to patch releases because
> of
> > > the long running release cycles (I know I have). If we could get the
> > > testing/release cycle to be faster, then we could put out more minor
> and
> > > patch releases and not have long running releases. The other problem is
> > > users that are stuck on a particular version. They want the patches,
> but
> > not
> > > the api changes. If we could tell our consumers that 1.7 will be client
> > api
> > > compatible with 1.6, then users will likely upgrade faster and we will
> > have
> > > less pressure to backport features to a minor/patch release.
> > >
> > > +1 to the main idea of this thread, but I think "bug only" strictness
> for
> > > patch releases will be the positive side effect of faster
> > testing/releases
> > > and adopting some specification like semver.
> > >
> > > - Dave
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ctubbsii@gmail.com [mailto:ctubbsii@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> > > Christopher
> > > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 3:45 PM
> > > To: Accumulo Dev List
> > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Bugs-only strictness for bugfix releases
> > >
> > > I don't think that's it's quite true to say '1.major.minor' is our de
> > facto
> > > scheme. Once again, I think many of us have always viewed it as
> > > '1.long-term-support.bugfix'.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Bill Havanki <
> bhavanki@clouderagovt.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >> I agree with Christopher in principle, but I share Sean's concern
> > >> about the versioning situation. Right now, the *de facto* versioning
> > >> scheme is 1.major.minor. We should just adopt semantic versioning (or
> > >> similar) and then enforce bugs-only for bugfix releases. This gives us
> > the
> > >> room we need.
> > >>
> > >> For reference: semver.org
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Sean Busbey
> > >> <busbey+lists@cloudera.com>wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> -1
> > >>>
> > >>> Until we have a full discussion on compatibility and what we're going
> > >>> to mean for version numbers, this is counter productive to our
> > >>> volunteer-driven CtR process. That some of us choose to focus our
> > >>> resources on more recent major versions is irrelevant.
> > >>>
> > >>> Right now, we conflate minor and bugfix versions. This change would
> > >>> mean instead conflating our major and minor versions. That's going to
> > >>> make it harder for people to upgrade for compatible improvements
> > >>> because the inclusion of the major changes will be disruptive.
> > >>>
> > >>> We need to have the compatibility and versioning discussion. This
> > >>> band aid won't help.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:16 PM, John Vines <vines@apache.org> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> > +1
> > >>> >
> > >>> >
> > >>> > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Christopher <ctubbsii@apache.org>
> > >>> > wrote:
> > >>> >
> > >>> > > JIRA JQL:
> > >>> > > 'project = ACCUMULO AND resolution = Unresolved AND type not in
> > >>> > > (Sub-task, Bug) AND fixVersion in (1.4.6,1.5.2,1.6.1)'
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > There are 32 outstanding issues not marked as "Bugs" planned for
> > >>> > > bugfix releases. This seems inappropriate to me. I would prefer
> > >>> > > to be very strict about the right-most segment of a version
> > >>> > > number, by defining it as "for bugfix releases", and by following
> > >>> > > the rule: if the issue doesn't fix a bug, then it doesn't go in a
> > >>> > > bugfix release.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > This strictness could help us focus on fixing and supporting
> > >>> > > actual bugs in previous releases, without being bogged down by
> > >>> > > non-bugs, it could help focus improvements in the latest version
> > >>> > > and encourage more rapid releases, and give users more reasons to
> > >>> > > upgrade. It would also help stabilize previous releases, by
> > >>> > > avoiding the introduction of new bugs, which bodes well for
> > long-term
> > >>> > > support.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > I know we've previously talked about semver and other strict
> > >>> > > versioning schemes, but regardless of whether we do any of those
> > >>> > > other things, I think this strictness is the very least we could
> > >>> > > do, and we could start encouraging this strictness today, with
> > >>> > > minimal impact.
> > >>> > > All it would take is to define the last segment of the versioned
> > >>> > > releases as "for bugfix releases", regardless of defining the
> > >>> > > rest of the version number (which can be discussed separately,
> > >>> > > and this is a subset of most any versioning scheme we've
> discussed
> > >>> > > already).
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > The implication is that some things we've done in the past to
> > >>> > > "backport" improvements and features, which didn't address a bug,
> > >>> > > would no longer be permitted. Or, at the very least, would have
> > >>> > > been highly discouraged, or would have warranted a vote (see next
> > >>> > > paragraph).
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > As with anything, there may be important exceptions, so perhaps
> > >>> > > with this strictness about "bugfix only for bugfix releases", we
> > >>> > > could encourage (by convention, if not by policy) calling a vote
> > >>> > > for non-bugfix changes, and rely on the veto for enforcement if a
> > >>> > > non-bugfix was applied to a bugfix version. If we agree to this
> > >>> > > strictness as a community, knowing a particular change is likely
> > >>> > > to result in a veto can be a big help in discouraging violations.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > As a final note, I should mention that there are at least a few
> > >>> > > of us who have been thinking about this last segment of the
> > >>> > > version as "bugfix only" anyways, if only informally. The lack of
> > >>> > > formalization/strictness about this, though, has permitted some
> > >>> > > things in the past that are probably not the best ideas in terms
> > >>> > > of stability and long-term support of previous release lines.
> > >>> > > Hopefully, by adopting this strictness as a community, instead of
> > >>> > > just informally in a few of our heads, we can all get on the same
> > >>> > > page, and it will make the project better overall.
> > >>> > >
> > >>> > > --
> > >>> > > Christopher L Tubbs II
> > >>> > > http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
> > >>> > >
> > >>> >
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> // Bill Havanki
> > >> // Solutions Architect, Cloudera Govt Solutions // 443.686.9283
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sean
>

--089e0160c660d9910404f6733ebb--